Disciplining Students Receiving Special Education

Disciplining Students Receiving Special Educationbyvincent H A Gordo

Disciplining Students Receiving Special Educationbyvincent H A Gordo

Disciplining students receiving special education involves navigating complex legal frameworks designed to protect the rights of students with disabilities while ensuring an effective and safe learning environment for all students. This paper explores the legal obligations of schools, procedural safeguards, case law, and practical implementations involved in disciplining students with special needs, emphasizing adherence to laws such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and related regulations.

Paper For Above instruction

The legal landscape surrounding the discipline of students receiving special education is rooted in establishing a balance between safeguarding students' rights and maintaining order within educational settings. Central to this framework are federal laws like the IDEA, which mandates Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and emphasizes procedural safeguards to protect students’ educational rights during disciplinary processes. These laws aim to prevent discrimination based on disability and to ensure that discipline is applied fairly and in accordance with due process rights.

Under IDEA, discipline procedures are designed to prevent the unwarranted removal of students with disabilities from their educational setting. Specifically, the law stipulates that disciplinary actions that would otherwise result in removal exceeding ten school days must follow a series of procedural steps, including prior written notice to parents, an opportunity for a parent to request a hearing, and a review process involving an impartial hearing officer. These safeguards are intended to prevent arbitrary or discriminatory discipline while supporting the educational needs of students with disabilities.

One critical aspect of discipline in special education is the concept of Manifestation Determination Review (MDR). This process requires that when a student with a disability faces disciplinary action that could result in removal exceeding ten days, the school must determine whether the behavior that led to disciplinary action is a manifestation of the student’s disability. If it is, the school must consider alternative disciplinary approaches rather than typical punitive measures and may be limited in removing the student from their current placement.

Legal case law, such as the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Board of Education v. Rowley (1982), reinforces the requirement for schools to provide appropriate educational services tailored to the individual needs of students with disabilities. Additionally, cases like Honig v. Doe (1988) emphasize that students cannot be expelled solely based on conduct that is a manifestation of their disability, further reinforcing the protective umbrella of IDEA regulations.

An illustrative case study, discussed by Imber and Geel (2004), involved a sixth-grade student with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The school attempted to expel him due to disruptive behavior, but the parents challenged the expulsion arguing that federal law prohibits such disciplinary action if it impairs the student's right to FAPE. The court upheld the school’s authority to discipline but also underscored the importance of implementing appropriate behavioral interventions aligned with the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP). Their decision highlighted the importance of balancing disciplinary measures with legal protections to prevent undue punishment that may violate the student’s rights.

Practical implementation of disciplinary policies requires meticulous documentation and adherence to procedural protocols. For example, in a case involving a student at a U.S. Virgin Islands high school, procedural flaws in managing a behavioral incident led to a mediation process. The school had attempted to transfer the student to an alternative program without proper communication or adherence to the established legal process. The mediation resulted in an agreement that the student would remain at his original school with revised and stricter behavioral expectations documented in his IEP and Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP). This case underscores the necessity of comprehensive documentation, timely communication, and procedural compliance to avoid legal disputes and protect students’ rights.

Additionally, schools must ensure that interventions are individualized and in line with each student’s IEP. When disciplinary issues arise, teams must carefully evaluate whether the misconduct is a manifestation of the disability. If so, the school must modify its disciplinary approach, often favoring behavioral interventions over exclusionary measures. Failure to follow these protocols not only risks legal liability but also jeopardizes the educational rights of students with disabilities, emphasizing the need for ongoing staff training and clear procedural guidelines.

Furthermore, the role of parent participation in disciplinary decisions is vital. Under IDEA, parents have the right to be involved in all aspects of their child's education, including disciplinary actions. They can request hearings and participate in mediation if disagreements arise. This collaborative approach aims to foster transparency and ensure that disciplinary measures are justified and appropriate, respecting parents' rights and the student's best interests.

In conclusion, disciplining students receiving special education requires a careful and legally compliant approach that balances school safety and student rights. Schools must adhere to federal laws, maintain detailed documentation, ensure parent involvement, and follow prescribed procedures such as manifestation determinations and due process hearings. Through diligent application of these legal safeguards, educational institutions can construct a discipline framework that upholds the integrity of special education while fostering a safe and conducive learning environment for all students.

References

• Imber, M., & Geel, T. (2004). Educational Law (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• United States Code, Title 20, Subchapter II, § 1415. Procedural Safeguards.
• Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988).
• Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
• U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Discipline Procedures for Students with Disabilities.
• Smith, S. (2010). Legal Standards for Special Education Discipline. Journal of Special Education Law, 15(2), 45-59.
• Gerber, P. J., & Wald, M. (2017). Protecting the Rights of Students with Disabilities in School Discipline. Disability Law Journal, 24(1), 67-85.
• National Association of School Psychologists. (2016). Best Practices for Use of Disciplinary Procedures in Special Education.
• Office of Special Education Programs. (2020). Mandatory Procedures and Due Process for Disciplinary Actions.